These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of bioactive glass to demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft in the treatment of intrabony defects around implants in the canine mandible.
    Author: Hall EE, Meffert RM, Hermann JS, Mellonig JT, Cochran DL.
    Journal: J Periodontol; 1999 May; 70(5):526-35. PubMed ID: 10368057.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the healing of different bone grafting materials adjacent to titanium plasma-sprayed (TPS) endosseous dental implants. METHODS: Implant osteotomy sites were prepared and standardized 3-walled intrabony defects (3 mm x 5 mm x 5 mm) were created at the mesial of each implant site. Thirty-two TPS implants were placed in edentulous mandibular ridges of the 4 dogs. Periodontal dressings were placed in the defect sites so as to create a defect simulating bone loss around an implant. After 3 months, the periodontal dressing was removed, the defect sites debrided and evaluated for size, and intramarrow penetration performed. The graft materials tested were 1) canine demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (cDFDBA); 2) bioactive glass granules of a broad size range 90 to 710 microns (BRG); and 3) bioactive glass granules of narrow size range 300 to 355 microns (NRG). One site on each side of the mandible was not filled and served as a control. Dogs were sacrificed 4 months after graft placement. RESULTS: Histologically, differences in percent bone-to-implant contact in the defect area were observed between the treatment groups. cDFDBA>control=BRG=NRG with statistical significance found between cDFDBA and control (P = 0.0379), but no statistically significant difference between control or either bioactive glass material. When comparing percent bone height fill of the defect in the grafted area, cDFDBA (65.7%) was significantly better than the control (48.9%; P < or = 0.05) with no statistically significant difference between control, broad range bioactive glass (57.3%) and narrow range bioactive glass (56.6%). When total bone area was measured, the percentage of new bone in the grafted area was cDFDBA (42.1%), broad range glass (33.1%) and narrow range glass (22.6%) with significance found between cDFDBA and NRG (P = 0.0102). The content of residual graft particles in soft tissue was significant (P = 0.0304) between cDFDBA (1.4%) and NRG (11.4%) with no significant difference between graft material for residual particle content in bone tissue. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that percent bone-to-implant contact and percent bone height fill in an intrabony defect around titanium plasma-sprayed implants are statistically significantly higher with the use of DFDBA when compared to bioactive glass material.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]